Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:50:13PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> How does one "implement" an "existing state of affairs?" If it is existing, it does not need implementation; if it needs implementation it is not quite the existing state of affairs yet. 
>

I suppose it was not the most elegant way of putting it.  I was trying
to be succinct because it seemed to me that we were in peril of
revisiting a number of closed topics.  But, since you ask,

> "No new organizations or structures are required. ... However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations are met." 
> 

this is how.  That is, we need no new organizations or structures.  I
think the WG was crystal clear that it is happy with the existing way
things work (hence "existing state of affairs").  What is changing is
that someone is leaving, and the actual current arrangements implicate
the departing party by reference.  So, IAOC needs to conclude a new
agreement that captures that moves the bits that implicate that
departing party into the agreement between IANA and IETF.

The IAOC of course has degrees of freedom to do that, but it must do
_that_.  Avri's interpretation of Bernard appeared to be suggesting
that the IAOC was in effect "finishing" the IETF's position, but it
isn't.  It's just implementing it.  The IAOC is not free to make any
substantive change to the way things work.  These are the "few new
arrangements" that may be needed.

I don't think there's anything remotely "spinny" about that
interpretation.  I can't even see how it could be controversial.

Regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]